On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:15:38 +, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:57 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> What's your recommendation then? Pass '-j1' on the command line for all
>> 'make install' invocations?
>
> That's probably overkill. All I know is I've previously been burnt
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> > On 2 February 2010 21:59, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >
> >> One of my concerns is "One unpleasant consequence of running several
> >> commands simultaneously is that output generated by the commands appears
> >> whenever each c
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 21:59, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> One of my concerns is "One unpleasant consequence of running several
>> commands simultaneously is that output generated by the commands appears
>> whenever each command sends it, so messages from different commands may
>> be i
On 2 February 2010 21:59, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> One of my concerns is "One unpleasant consequence of running several
> commands simultaneously is that output generated by the commands appears
> whenever each command sends it, so messages from different commands may
> be interspersed."
>
Me too.
Kevin Buckley wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 20:15, Greg Schafer wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:57 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>
>>> What's your recommendation then? Pass '-j1' on the command line for all
>>> 'make install' invocations?
>> That's probably overkill. All I know is I've previous
On 2 February 2010 20:15, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:57 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
>> What's your recommendation then? Pass '-j1' on the command line for all
>> 'make install' invocations?
>
> That's probably overkill. All I know is I've previously been burnt by
> both GC
> That's probably overkill. All I know is I've previously been burnt by
> both GCC and Glibc with `-j3' on 2 cores. And considering the importance
> of these packages, I take no chances and just add the `-j1'. Note the
> comment in followup to this:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:57 +, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> What's your recommendation then? Pass '-j1' on the command line for all
> 'make install' invocations?
That's probably overkill. All I know is I've previously been burnt by
both GCC and Glibc with `-j3' on 2 cores. And considering the i
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> We might also
> consider using the environment variable CONFIG_SITE to cache configure
> settings. E.g.
>
> export CONFIG_SITE=/home/lfs/config.site
>
> # /home/lfs/config.site for configure
>
> # Give Autoconf 2.x generated configure scripts a shared de
Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:41 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
>
>> Much more clever would be to mention MAKEFLAGS in the intro somewhere,
>> and add -j1 as needed for the packages that don't support parallel make.
>
> Exactly as currently done in DIY Linux.
>
>> This is what I
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
>>
>> Much more clever would be to mention MAKEFLAGS in the intro somewhere,
>> and add -j1 as needed for the packages that don't support parallel make.
>> This is what I do in my build scripts, and out of >1300 source packages,
>> I've only had to enforc
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:00:41 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> Much more clever would be to mention MAKEFLAGS in the intro somewhere,
> and add -j1 as needed for the packages that don't support parallel make.
Exactly as currently done in DIY Linux.
> This is what I do in my build scripts, and out
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 00:20 +, Greg Schafer wrote:
>> (Sidenote: Any plans for LFS to incorporate parallel make into the build?
>> Seems like a gaping omission in this day and age of commonplace multicore
>> cpu's. At the very minimum, Glibc, GCC and Binutils should b
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 00:20 +, Greg Schafer wrote:
> (Sidenote: Any plans for LFS to incorporate parallel make into the build?
> Seems like a gaping omission in this day and age of commonplace multicore
> cpu's. At the very minimum, Glibc, GCC and Binutils should be given the
> option of `ma
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Nathan Coulson schrieb:
>
>> I have been experimenting with a multilib LFS System (where /lib,
>> /usr/lib are used for 64bit, and /lib/32, and /usr/lib/32 are used
>> for 32bit). I wanted something as close to LFS as possible,
>> primarily 64bit, but just enough 32bit so
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
>>> wrote:
>>>
#2033 Create initramfs
I think this one should be closed as won't fix. The reason for a
initrd is for those systems that don't know in a
2009/9/18 Tobias Gasser :
[ snip good explanations ]
> what about the kernel modules. they will be 64 bit, don't they have to
> be in /lib64/modules?
Tried it in clfs. Not worth the aggro. You have to change the top-level
kernel Makefile every time.
> perl: most will be in /lib/perl as they
2009/9/18 Nathan Coulson :
.
>
> I have been experimenting with a multilib LFS System (where /lib,
> /usr/lib are used for 64bit, and /lib/32, and /usr/lib/32 are used for
> 32bit). I wanted something as close to LFS as possible, primarily
> 64bit, but just enough 32bit so if I wanted to compile s
Nathan Coulson schrieb:
>
> I have been experimenting with a multilib LFS System (where /lib,
> /usr/lib are used for 64bit, and /lib/32, and /usr/lib/32 are used for
> 32bit). I wanted something as close to LFS as possible, primarily
> 64bit, but just enough 32bit so if I wanted to compile some
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>
>>> #2033Create initramfs
>>>
>>> I think this one should be closed as won't fix. The reason for a
>>> initrd is for those systems that don't know in advance which
>>> drivers are
Nathan Coulson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Burgess
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
>> wrote:
>>> About the only other thing I can think of that is a candidate for
>>> LFS would be to add instructions for multi-lib.
>> I think I'd like to see that
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>
>> #2033 Create initramfs
>>
>> I think this one should be closed as won't fix. The reason for a
>> initrd is for those systems that don't know in advance which
>> drivers are needed for accessing the bo
I've added a new milestone of LFS-6.6 to the wiki with a target date of March
2010. I also moved most of the tickets to that milestone.
I see this release as relatively routine.
The next big hurdle will be 7.0 when we add multi-lib. If we make good
progress
on that, we can skip a 6.6 release
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Greg Schafer wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:12:43 -0700, Nathan Coulson wrote:
>> I have been experimenting with a multilib LFS System (where /lib,
>> /usr/lib are used for 64bit, and /lib/32, and /usr/lib/32 are used for
>> 32bit).
>
> I advise against this. Not
Greg Schafer wrote:
> (Sidenote: Any plans for LFS to incorporate parallel make into the build?
> Seems like a gaping omission in this day and age of commonplace multicore
> cpu's. At the very minimum, Glibc, GCC and Binutils should be given the
> option of `make -jX' with the appropriate expla
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:12:43 -0700, Nathan Coulson wrote:
> I have been experimenting with a multilib LFS System (where /lib,
> /usr/lib are used for 64bit, and /lib/32, and /usr/lib/32 are used for
> 32bit).
I advise against this. Not FHS compliant and not what the big distros do.
> The toolcha
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:41 -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>> #2412 Add more rationale to Toolchain Technical Notes
>>
>> Who do we get to advise us on this one?
>
> I'd appreciate it if Greg could help contribute on this
I'm ho
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> About the only other thing I can think of that is a candidate for LFS
>> would be to add instructions for multi-lib.
>
> I think I'd like to see that work go in too, but I have no e
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:18:16 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> #2093 Add a new section for multiple boot loaders
>
> I don't think this is necessary. When the next version of GRUB2 is
> released, I think that will cover what we need.
Agreed
> #2412 Add more rationale to Toolchain
Matt,
Nice job on updating half the outstanding tickets.
Now I'd like to discuss the other half.
#2093Add a new section for multiple boot loaders
I don't think this is necessary. When the next version of GRUB2 is released, I
think that will cover what we need.
#2412Add more rationa
30 matches
Mail list logo
